As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
Are spammers posting to public message boards a "new hack"?
Did Apple "do all you can do pro-actively before release"?
Have not registered will not register for Ping. Facebook is enough craziness for me, and I use it infrequently. I think the loss of facebook cooperation deal is gonna make it difficult for apple. Keeping up with privacy, new features, spammers, hackers etc is a full time job, that would have been better done outsourced then in-house. Especially for hardware/software company like Apple.
I cringed a little when Steve announced Ping (so close to Bing too), but perhaps I'm wrong. We'll see how this pans out.
Are spammers posting to public message boards a "new hack"?
Did Apple "do all you can do pro-actively before release"?
Sorry, this went off topic, I'm not suggesting spam is any way a "hack" - the original point back there was that all security should be dealt with before the event (pro-actively) - my point was that this is not possible. Hackers, virus developers and spammers will constantly find new ways to annoy.
Yes they have, they've got google, bing and any other search provider you can list- it's all there in google. Providing alternatives is good for the consumer.
Google need apple as much as the inverse. Google betrayed apple and deserve a big slap.
Anyone has the right to release a new technology, or to provide alternatives to existing products and services. To sit on the board of a company obtaining useful inside information and then go into competition with them is frankly despicable. I don't see Apple entering the search market?
Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?
People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.
And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
Did you dream this or do you live in a different reality? Apple never announced Facebook functionality related to Ping. They reportedly tried to have integration with Facebook, but couldn't work out a deal. When asked about it, they said the financial terms were unacceptable. Oh well. I don't know what's "nasty or amateurish" about that.
If this was "totally expected," then why wasn't the issue dealt with proactively?
I take it you've never launched a service like this?
Apple has created an open communication medium which is bound to receive a lot of attention so this is going to be an uphill battle for them. As an experienced web developer I do not envy them the task of tackling this issue. I will guess at one thing, though: they probably did underestimate this. But they've definitely got the resources and motivation to explore solutions.
So you're suggesting that Apple released this with no protection at all in place? That seems a little far fetched.
I've got more levels of spam protection on my servers than I can list - I still get spam.
The company that produce a system that 100% eradicates all spam will be very, very rich very quickly.
The protection you're talking about doesn't exist yet, so how could it be put in place?
EDIT No doubt the usual filtering will now be added to - lists of IP addresses, server, domains, key strings etc. etc.
I'm only going on what others are saying. There doesn't seem to be any up-front indication that any form of spam protection is in place. As another post said, allowing users to mark accounts they're getting spam from would greatly help Apple in shutting them down. Maybe it is all in the background, which would mean you're right that spammers have found a way around it.
My point was that something is better than nothing. Like you said, no spam protection is 100% effective. But protection can help weed out the spam attacks that's already in place, forcing spammers to come up with new ways to get around it. In whch case, we come to your point in reacting to brand-new attacks.
It seems that spam would have happened to Ping sooner or later. Spam protection would have only delayed it.
Actually, it makes sense that Apple is restricting their "social media" concept to iTunes. They're not trying to be another FaceBook?a community for anyone and everyone. It's a "niche" community of music lovers and fans (and perhaps?hopefully?eventually, book and movie lovers as well). If they open it up to "any browser at any time", they run into all sorts of issues regarding security, browser compatibility, hardware compatibility, etc. If it's kept in the iTunes fold, then there's the assurance that if iTunes works on the user's computer, then Ping will work as well.
Ping is limited to iTunes - but that includes the iPhone and iPod Touch as well.
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
Which part of "Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering" don't you understand?
Do you really need a crystal ball to know what's going to happen?
Did you dream this or do you live in a different reality? Apple never announced Facebook functionality related to Ping. They reportedly tried to have integration with Facebook, but couldn't work out a deal. When asked about it, they said the financial terms were unacceptable. Oh well. I don't know what's "nasty or amateurish" about that.
Cult of Mac had this to say about how "Apple never announce Facebook functionality":
"On the one hand, we have the above screenshot, taken from Apple’s own Ping web page just this morning.
It clearly says you can connect Ping to Facebook. But. You can’t."
Here's another reporter's take:
"I'd heard you could find your Facebook friends with Ping and thought that would turn up a huge well of smart music fans to follow. But last night Facebook pulled the plug on Apple's interface between Ping and Facebook. Facebook says that Ping could cause "site instability" and "infrastructure" problems. "
Steve now vilifies Facebook publicly. That is not a nice way to do business. You and I can disagree on that, its OK.
I take it you've never launched a service like this?
Apple has created an open communication medium which is bound to receive a lot of attention so this is going to be an uphill battle for them. As an experienced web developer I do not envy them the task of tackling this issue. I will guess at one thing, though: they probably did underestimate this. But they've definitely got the resources and motivation to explore solutions.
I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.
"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."
As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?
Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?
People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.
And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.
why can't google create android? What are you talking about? The point is that schiller did not go away and create a new company - what he did was forge partnership with a fellow IT company, sit on the board and then go away and start emulating their services. Apple did not do the same in return.
We're not talking about android and iOS, we're talking about the phone. That's Apple's flash point, and I entirely agree with them.
I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.
"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."
As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?
Ping does feature spam and URL filtering - I just tried posting a couple of obvious doozies and saw them fail. I'm not sure if you're naive or just critical for the point of it?
I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.
"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."
As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?
I'm sure Apple wants URLs to be available for sharing, so I'm curious what sort of URL filtering you have in mind? They've got a few traditional options, such as requiring a degree of participation, but that's easy to circumvent. Or they can disable URL sharing for replies, but that's the nuclear option. It isn't as trivial a decision as people make it out to be.
Spam filtering? This is even more the case. Developing efficient spam filtering, aside from being a bandaid on a gaping wound rather than a cure, is even more difficult to implement. If Apple does take that avenue it is a solution they will have to develop through a game of studying a cat-and-mouse exchange. Ideally they'll aim for a solution which attacks the problem at an earlier stage.
The sarcasm is fine given I was sarcastic initially, but the point I want to stress is that it is extremely hard to appreciate the complexity of what this problem can become without an understanding of how extensive this spammer vs. exchange medium is on big platforms, be it a social network, forum, or even email.
So really, buzz words (like 'spam filtering' and 'URL filtering') don't mean much without the technical backing.
I'm only going on what others are saying. There doesn't seem to be any up-front indication that any form of spam protection is in place. As another post said, allowing users to mark accounts they're getting spam from would greatly help Apple in shutting them down. Maybe it is all in the background, which would mean you're right that spammers have found a way around it.
My point was that something is better than nothing. Like you said, no spam protection is 100% effective. But protection can help weed out the spam attacks that's already in place, forcing spammers to come up with new ways to get around it. In whch case, we come to your point in reacting to brand-new attacks.
It seems that spam would have happened to Ping sooner or later. Spam protection would have only delayed it.
And my point is you're criticising the unknown as fact. There is spam prevention in place - there is no such thing as spam proofing. Databases of offendors, IP addresses take time, and no matter what is in place it keeps coming. It happens on facebook, it happens on my POP accounts, so why should PING be immune? Odd logic.
Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?
People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.
And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.
The ethical thing for Schmidt to do would have been to resign from Apple's board as soon as Google started thinking about developing Android.
Nobody's saying Google should not have developed Android - they just shouldn't have sat on Apple's board gathering inside information while developing a competitive product. There was a LOT of information Apple had that should not have been shared with a competitor - Apple's analysis of the mobile market, Apple's plans in future phone development and advertising, etc.
Without Apple's analysis of the market, Google may not have realized it could be so lucrative. Remember, everyone outside of Apple was saying the iPhone would fail. Google might have thought that as well, and delayed or stopped developing Android altogether if they hadn't seen Apple's internal numbers. That would have given Apple probably 2 more years of a head start.
To me, Schmidt's actions border on industrial espionage.
Comments
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
Are spammers posting to public message boards a "new hack"?
Did Apple "do all you can do pro-actively before release"?
I cringed a little when Steve announced Ping (so close to Bing too), but perhaps I'm wrong. We'll see how this pans out.
Are spammers posting to public message boards a "new hack"?
Did Apple "do all you can do pro-actively before release"?
Sorry, this went off topic, I'm not suggesting spam is any way a "hack" - the original point back there was that all security should be dealt with before the event (pro-actively) - my point was that this is not possible. Hackers, virus developers and spammers will constantly find new ways to annoy.
Yes they have, they've got google, bing and any other search provider you can list- it's all there in google. Providing alternatives is good for the consumer.
Google need apple as much as the inverse. Google betrayed apple and deserve a big slap.
Anyone has the right to release a new technology, or to provide alternatives to existing products and services. To sit on the board of a company obtaining useful inside information and then go into competition with them is frankly despicable. I don't see Apple entering the search market?
Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?
People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.
And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
Did you dream this or do you live in a different reality? Apple never announced Facebook functionality related to Ping. They reportedly tried to have integration with Facebook, but couldn't work out a deal. When asked about it, they said the financial terms were unacceptable. Oh well. I don't know what's "nasty or amateurish" about that.
If this was "totally expected," then why wasn't the issue dealt with proactively?
I take it you've never launched a service like this?
Apple has created an open communication medium which is bound to receive a lot of attention so this is going to be an uphill battle for them. As an experienced web developer I do not envy them the task of tackling this issue. I will guess at one thing, though: they probably did underestimate this. But they've definitely got the resources and motivation to explore solutions.
So you're suggesting that Apple released this with no protection at all in place? That seems a little far fetched.
I've got more levels of spam protection on my servers than I can list - I still get spam.
The company that produce a system that 100% eradicates all spam will be very, very rich very quickly.
The protection you're talking about doesn't exist yet, so how could it be put in place?
EDIT No doubt the usual filtering will now be added to - lists of IP addresses, server, domains, key strings etc. etc.
I'm only going on what others are saying. There doesn't seem to be any up-front indication that any form of spam protection is in place. As another post said, allowing users to mark accounts they're getting spam from would greatly help Apple in shutting them down. Maybe it is all in the background, which would mean you're right that spammers have found a way around it.
My point was that something is better than nothing. Like you said, no spam protection is 100% effective. But protection can help weed out the spam attacks that's already in place, forcing spammers to come up with new ways to get around it. In whch case, we come to your point in reacting to brand-new attacks.
It seems that spam would have happened to Ping sooner or later. Spam protection would have only delayed it.
<drama-queen>You have to activate it from within iTunes, it is not automatically on when you upgrate to
v10. Thank God.</drama-queen>
Fixed your post for you
Actually, it makes sense that Apple is restricting their "social media" concept to iTunes. They're not trying to be another FaceBook?a community for anyone and everyone. It's a "niche" community of music lovers and fans (and perhaps?hopefully?eventually, book and movie lovers as well). If they open it up to "any browser at any time", they run into all sorts of issues regarding security, browser compatibility, hardware compatibility, etc. If it's kept in the iTunes fold, then there's the assurance that if iTunes works on the user's computer, then Ping will work as well.
Ping is limited to iTunes - but that includes the iPhone and iPod Touch as well.
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
Which part of "Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering" don't you understand?
Do you really need a crystal ball to know what's going to happen?
Did you dream this or do you live in a different reality? Apple never announced Facebook functionality related to Ping. They reportedly tried to have integration with Facebook, but couldn't work out a deal. When asked about it, they said the financial terms were unacceptable. Oh well. I don't know what's "nasty or amateurish" about that.
Cult of Mac had this to say about how "Apple never announce Facebook functionality":
"On the one hand, we have the above screenshot, taken from Apple’s own Ping web page just this morning.
It clearly says you can connect Ping to Facebook. But. You can’t."
Here's another reporter's take:
"I'd heard you could find your Facebook friends with Ping and thought that would turn up a huge well of smart music fans to follow. But last night Facebook pulled the plug on Apple's interface between Ping and Facebook. Facebook says that Ping could cause "site instability" and "infrastructure" problems. "
Steve now vilifies Facebook publicly. That is not a nice way to do business. You and I can disagree on that, its OK.
This was totally expected and as the service grows, I suspect Apple will adjust accordingly.
Who Cares? I do not plan on turning on PIng!
I take it you've never launched a service like this?
Apple has created an open communication medium which is bound to receive a lot of attention so this is going to be an uphill battle for them. As an experienced web developer I do not envy them the task of tackling this issue. I will guess at one thing, though: they probably did underestimate this. But they've definitely got the resources and motivation to explore solutions.
I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.
"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."
As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?
Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?
People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.
And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.
why can't google create android? What are you talking about? The point is that schiller did not go away and create a new company - what he did was forge partnership with a fellow IT company, sit on the board and then go away and start emulating their services. Apple did not do the same in return.
We're not talking about android and iOS, we're talking about the phone. That's Apple's flash point, and I entirely agree with them.
I fail to follow your logic.
I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.
"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."
As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?
Ping does feature spam and URL filtering - I just tried posting a couple of obvious doozies and saw them fail. I'm not sure if you're naive or just critical for the point of it?
Steve now vilifies Facebook publicly. That is not a nice way to do business. You and I can disagree on that, its OK.
Nope, he doesn't - Apple have made no public statement on the matter.
I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.
"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."
As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?
I'm sure Apple wants URLs to be available for sharing, so I'm curious what sort of URL filtering you have in mind? They've got a few traditional options, such as requiring a degree of participation, but that's easy to circumvent. Or they can disable URL sharing for replies, but that's the nuclear option. It isn't as trivial a decision as people make it out to be.
Spam filtering? This is even more the case. Developing efficient spam filtering, aside from being a bandaid on a gaping wound rather than a cure, is even more difficult to implement. If Apple does take that avenue it is a solution they will have to develop through a game of studying a cat-and-mouse exchange. Ideally they'll aim for a solution which attacks the problem at an earlier stage.
The sarcasm is fine given I was sarcastic initially, but the point I want to stress is that it is extremely hard to appreciate the complexity of what this problem can become without an understanding of how extensive this spammer vs. exchange medium is on big platforms, be it a social network, forum, or even email.
So really, buzz words (like 'spam filtering' and 'URL filtering') don't mean much without the technical backing.
I'm only going on what others are saying. There doesn't seem to be any up-front indication that any form of spam protection is in place. As another post said, allowing users to mark accounts they're getting spam from would greatly help Apple in shutting them down. Maybe it is all in the background, which would mean you're right that spammers have found a way around it.
My point was that something is better than nothing. Like you said, no spam protection is 100% effective. But protection can help weed out the spam attacks that's already in place, forcing spammers to come up with new ways to get around it. In whch case, we come to your point in reacting to brand-new attacks.
It seems that spam would have happened to Ping sooner or later. Spam protection would have only delayed it.
And my point is you're criticising the unknown as fact. There is spam prevention in place - there is no such thing as spam proofing. Databases of offendors, IP addresses take time, and no matter what is in place it keeps coming. It happens on facebook, it happens on my POP accounts, so why should PING be immune? Odd logic.
Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?
People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.
And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.
The ethical thing for Schmidt to do would have been to resign from Apple's board as soon as Google started thinking about developing Android.
Nobody's saying Google should not have developed Android - they just shouldn't have sat on Apple's board gathering inside information while developing a competitive product. There was a LOT of information Apple had that should not have been shared with a competitor - Apple's analysis of the mobile market, Apple's plans in future phone development and advertising, etc.
Without Apple's analysis of the market, Google may not have realized it could be so lucrative. Remember, everyone outside of Apple was saying the iPhone would fail. Google might have thought that as well, and delayed or stopped developing Android altogether if they hadn't seen Apple's internal numbers. That would have given Apple probably 2 more years of a head start.
To me, Schmidt's actions border on industrial espionage.